Becoming a Right To Work state is the biggest step Michigan could take in attracting new businesses and stimulating their economic recovery.

Personally, I could never imagine living in a state where workers aren't free. Of course, I live in an area of my state where unempolyment is less than 4% and our per House-Hold Income is the highest in the state. An area where the word "union" is frowned upon.

12-07-2012, 09:00 AM

JS

"Right to Work" has nothing to do with "freedom".

Workers are always FREE to choose whether they want the WORK to be represented by a union OR NOT. The difference is that in a RTW state, a worker can accept the benefits and working conditions negotiated by the union and the company, WITHOUT paying the cost of that representation (dues). Kinds like accepting government benefits (handouts) without paying taxes ... something all of us here despise. ;-)

To think that a company would avoid union organizing simply by moving to a RTW state is a misconception.

JS

12-07-2012, 09:04 AM

mngundog

If you check the numbers there is little difference between the two (RTW or Union), if you cherry pick the numbers you could make a case for either one. Unemployment rate .6% lower in a RTW state and median wages are 9% lower, pick and choose either side Will make their case.

12-07-2012, 09:13 AM

road kill

Quote:

Originally Posted by mngundog

If you check the numbers there is little difference between the two (RTW or Union), if you cherry pick the numbers you could make a case for either one. Unemployment rate .6% lower in a RTW state and median wages are 9% lower, pick and choose either side Will make their case.

Then why have a union at all?

12-07-2012, 09:18 AM

mngundog

Quote:

Originally Posted by road kill

Then why have a union at all?

I have voted for and against bringing unions in, they have there place in certain situations, employee protection for one.

12-07-2012, 09:21 AM

HPL

Quote:

Originally Posted by JS

"Right to Work" has nothing to do with "freedom".

Workers are always FREE to choose whether they want the WORK to be represented by a union OR NOT. The difference is that in a RTW state, a worker can accept the benefits and working conditions negotiated by the union and the company, WITHOUT paying the cost of that representation (dues). Kinda like accepting government benefits (handouts) without paying taxes ... something all of us here despise. ;-)

To think that a company would avoid union organizing simply by moving to a RTW state is a misconception.

JS

I might almost acknowledge your point IF unions limited themselves to negotiating with employers and weren't politically active, but since individual members don't get to specify how their monies are distributed to the various political parties, candidates, and causes, afraid I simply can't agree. If the unions would distribute their political contributions proportional to he leanings of individual members (which wouldn't be that difficult), then, again, I could almost go with your statement, but................

12-07-2012, 09:21 AM

Franco

Quote:

Originally Posted by JS

"Right to Work" has nothing to do with "freedom".

Workers are always FREE to choose whether they want the WORK to be represented by a union OR NOT. The difference is that in a RTW state, a worker can accept the benefits and working conditions negotiated by the union and the company, WITHOUT paying the cost of that representation (dues). Kinds like accepting government benefits (handouts) without paying taxes ... something all of us here despise. ;-)

To think that a company would avoid union organizing simply by moving to a RTW state is a misconception.

JS

Not down here!;-) The Oil Field has always refused to talk with unions and neither does the Medical Industry in this part of the world.

12-07-2012, 09:31 AM

JS

Quote:

Originally Posted by mngundog

If you check the numbers there is little difference between the two (RTW or Union), if you cherry pick the numbers you could make a case for either one. Unemployment rate .6% lower in a RTW state and median wages are 9% lower, pick and choose either side Will make their case.

There IS QUITE a difference between states with higher union representation and those with less, RTW notwithstanding.

Compare median income. Maybe it's just me but I think good wages are a GOOD thing.

Compare tax contribution vs. tax distribution ... (those graphics Henry V provided a while back). The states with the lowest union representation (and the lowest wages) are, in general, the states that TAKE more from the government than they CONTRIBUTE. If I lived in one of those states on the other end of the spectrum ... like WASHINGTON ;-) ... I think I would be wondering if MY share of the load would be lightened a little if some of those other states DID pay more union wages.

Drive through some of those states and you will see more pawn shops and "pay-day loan" signs in one block than I see in my whole town.

JS

12-07-2012, 09:39 AM

caryalsobrook

You can argue all day long which is best, RTW or Closed shop. Let each state make it's own choice, then the proof will be in the pudding. I live in a RTW state Shop, creating less competition for my state. If Mich. wants a closed shop, then let them go for it and let's see which is the best economically. thats called competition!:)